Output Quality... Premiere or Avid?
 

Are there any reviews comparing the output quality of Premiere and Avid?

should I get Premiere/MatroxRT.X100, or Avid/Mojo? If I were deciding based only on quality of output, which is the winner?

Darin,

the NLE that you use does not determine the output quality, DV is DV, from either Avid or Premiere, that's the beauty of digital. It's just like soup, it doesn't matter if you eat it with a stainless steel spoon or a gold spoon, it still tastes the same.

The difference between NLEs is basically the tool sets, RT effects, and format support. Avid with Mojo is basically designed to do anything from DV to uncompressed SD where Premiere Pro/RT.X100 is more of a DV/HDV? app. The feature set of Avid Express Pro/Mojo is more aimed at professional videographers producing independant films and docs for broadcast, hence the uncompressed SD support. Premiere/RT.X100 is more of a prosumer NLE for the wedding/DVD/multimedia crew. Of course both could be used for either it all depends on how much you want to spend.

Avid Salesman
 

I visited with a NLE turnkey salesman who was really pushing me to buy Avid. He said the output quality is far superior to Premiere. Can I then assume that he's just pushing his product? (that he's simply trying to sell me a gold-spoon instead of stainless steel?)

In the end, I told him that I was still interested in Premiere/Matrox.

I still haven't purchased a system. Soon.

Avid Xpress Pro with Mojo will outdo Matrox/Premiere in the workflow and features/toolsets but the final output quality wise is the same. Xpress is well known for its excellent colour correction and the ability to work with full-blown Avid NLEs.

It all depends on what you want to do. If you are heading into broadcast TV or film work, either freelance or for a company, or using uncompressed 601 media then I would go with Avid as it is the industry standard. The Xpress interface is almost the same as the full-blown Avids and will really help get you on the way. If you are just getting into editing and only using DV but want to learn on a good system without spending $3000 just for the NLE then I'd go with Matrox/Premiere which goes for around 1/3 the price.

I started 5 years ago with Premiere 4.2 then went up to Premiere 5.1 with a Pinnacle DV500. It was a great and relitively inexpensive way to get more into editing. Now, I'm getting older and want to get more serious then just shooting/editing sports videos so I'm getting into Avid but only because it is a more sort-after editing skillset for professional work than Premiere.

I get antsy when people start talking about "industry standards." As Adrian said, if you are going to go into professional broadcast editing, you might want to consider learning Avid. But that's so you can work for someone else who expects you to work with and understand the Avid system. Or (as has been said) if you plan to work with uncompressed SD video or other non-DV25 high datarate footage. Or if you plan to open a post facilty and need to be able to handle work done with Avid (or you have to deal with snooty producers who "only want Avid" -- or FCP, see below). If you are editing for yourself, don't worry about "industry standards." I get paid for the video I produce using Premiere 6.5, as I like to say.

And that said, the industry standard seems to be moving to Final Cut Pro, as it is. The university I work at has a very good Journalism/Broadcast Media program and they have switched from Avid to Final Cut Pro. They are teaching their students FCP becuase that's what they'll need to know when they graduate (this program works closly with CNN and has even been known to supply stories/ENG footage to them). Major motion pictures such as Cold Mountain are completed using FCP. Do you want to consider getting a Mac, now?

Regardless -- if you are just working for yourself, shooting and editing miniDV footage, then simply go with the system you like the best, with an interface you are comfortable with. Don't spend a bunch of money on Avid or FCP just because it's "Industry Standard."

When effects are placed on a time line and then rendered, the software (or hardware) uses proprietary Codecs. Since the DV is fundamentally altered by the rendered effect, the quality of the Codec has a direct effect on the quality of the final output. Each NLE will have different quality output.

That's basically true, Jeff, but in my opinion the differences aren't
visible anymore unless you do multiple generations with DV. BUT,
the water muddy's even more if your final output isn't DV (as is
often the case).

If the output is going to be web or DVD then it all boils down to
those encoders.

As indicated earlier, it basically boils down to what you want to
do. If you are only going to do work for DVD then I would go with
the best NLE for the job and get a standalone mpeg encoder if
the supplied one with the NLE is not good enough (for example).

If you give us a bit more detailed description of what your plans
and needs are, Darin, then we can better help you with your
"choice".

Comparisons of various Codecs with links to stills have been discussed before. To my eyes, I can see a difference in the Codecs. This difference will become more important as resolution improves with the new HD formats.

I have seen those tests as well. BUT, to the best of my knowledge
those tests were done YEARS ago. Each and every codec that
gets installed now has been through many revisions since then
(most notably the Microsoft codec Premiere uses/used -> I think
Premiere Pro is also now using a different codec).

I believe those tests are a year or two old. The site I'm referring to, last updated it's comparisons six months ago. The visual quality of your image will only be as good as the weakest link in the chain. If you view your work on low quality, consumer TV's then the difference in codecs will not be apparent. However, if a high quality workflow is maintained, Codec quality would be a concern of mine. Codec quality would be a concern to me if I was planning on going to film, or projecting DV on a large screen.

onward...
 

Thanks all for your input, which, as often is the case, leads to more questions...
I read that using DV/Matrox/Premiere, the capture compression AND the export compression are both 4:1:1. Does this mean that the video is compressed TWICE?? Once when captured, and again when exported?(Three times if you count the 5:1 original compression just because it's DV)?

Also, I intend to do most of my work capturing from my PD170, and exporting to DVD & VHS. The bulk of my work will be for either retail, or corporate marketing.

I think I'll go with the Matrox RT.X100/Premeire and all of its recommended system requirements.

4:1:1 refers to the color sampling. For every 4 samples of luminance/brightness information, there's 1 sample for hue and 1 sample for saturation.

http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-tech.html#colorSampling

http://www.adamwilt.com/pix-sampling.html <-- look at the pictures here. As a visual person, that makes a lot of sense to me.

You can see it as a form of compression. Glenn explained it well.
It is not a re-compression since the capture is done in that way
as well!